18730 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

5] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting date 

change. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. FRA has conducted four 

meetings to date and on March 17, 2007, 

FRA published a notice announcing the 

scheduling of an additional meeting to 

be held April 26, 2007, in Syracuse, 

New York. Due to recently developed 

scheduling conflicts, however, it is 

necessary to postpone this April 26 

meeting. This Notice No. 5 is an 

announcement that the Syracuse, New 

York, meeting has been rescheduled for 

July 26, 2007. FRA regrets any 

inconvenience this date change may 

have caused. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads, and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning the 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The fifth public meeting will be 

held in Syracuse, New York on July 26, 

2007, at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel, 

701 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, New 

York 13210, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation, and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, FRA 

Docket Clerk, 1120 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva 

using the aforementioned information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, FRA Office of Safety, 1120 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, FRA Office of Safety, 

1120 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, FRA 

Office of Chief Counsel, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice published July 27, 2006, in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 42713) and 

available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether the creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

the ‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossings be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

Government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings,’’

rather than as ‘‘private crossings?’’

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should DOT request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 

2007. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E7–7064 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System or Relief From 

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 236 

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has petitioned the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) seeking approval 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system or relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as 

detailed below. 

[Docket Number FRA–2007–27287] 

Applicant: BNSF Railway Company, Mr. 

Gregory C. Fox, Vice President 

Engineering, P.O. Box 961034, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76161–0034. 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) seeks 

relief from the requirements of the 

Rules, Standards and Instructions, Title 

49 CFR part 236, Section 236.377 

Approach Locking, 236.378 Time 

locking, 236.379 Route Locking, 236.380 

Indication Locking, and 236.381 Traffic 

Locking, on processor-based systems to 

the extent that only the following be 

required every four years after initial 

testing or program change: 

• Verification of the CRC/Check Sum/ 

UCN of the existing location specific 

application logic to the previously 

tested version. 

• Tests on equipment outside the 

processor (switch indication, track 

indication, searchlight signal indication, 

approach locking (if external)) are 

verified to the processor’s inputs and 

switch locking is tested from the 

processor’s output to the switch 

machine. 

• Testing of the duration of any 

timers with variable settings. 

Applicant’s justification for relief: 

Many of BNSF’s interlockings and 

control points are controlled by solidstate processor-based systems. The 2- 

year signal locking tests for solid-state 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES